MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043125085 · doi:10.1080/02755947.2014.996683

A Comparison of Three Anatomical Structures for Estimating Age in a Slow-Growing Subarctic Population of Lake Whitefish

2015· article· en· W2043125085 on OpenAlexaff
Xinhua Zhu, Rick J. Wastle, Katie E. Howland, Deanna J. Leonard, Susan Mann, Theresa J. Carmichael, Ross F. Tallman

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGovernment of OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesGovernment of CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubarctic climateOtolithCoregonus clupeaformisBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>PopulationFish finBorealCoregonusFisheryEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It has been well documented in previous research that otoliths are the preferred hard structure for estimating age in coregonids. However, the slower growth due to short growing seasons experienced by populations in the subarctic region of the boreal zone may alter the utility of alternative nonlethal structures for estimating age. We compared the three most commonly used age estimation structures (otoliths, pectoral fin rays, and scales) for Lake Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis in a northern (above 50°N) population from Great Slave Lake. This study provides new perspectives regarding the use of different aging structures with fish populations typical of subarctic and arctic environments. Results of ANOVA showed that reader confidence, within-reader precision, and the age estimates themselves were all affected by age structure; reader confidence also varied with age-class. Reader confidence was highest for age estimates from otoliths, followed by pectoral fin rays and then scales. Similarly, within-reader precision (as measured by CVs) was highest for age estimates from otoliths, followed by scales and then pectoral fin ray sections. Pairwise comparisons between age estimates from otoliths and those from scales or pectoral fin rays indicated no significant differences when fish were younger than 10 years (scales) or 12 years (fin rays), suggesting that these nonlethal structures could be conservatively used to reliably estimate ages of younger (<10 years) and smaller (≤300 mm FL) Lake Whitefish. Of particular significance are the findings that (1) divergence between scale and otolith age estimates is delayed by 5–6 years relative to more southerly populations; and (2) in contrast to examples from southern populations, fin rays do not offer a suitable nonlethal alternative for estimating ages of older Lake Whitefish (>11 years). Received March 4, 2014; accepted December 3, 2014

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of Fisheries ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207